Exposure basics, lesson two point one (& ISO)

Started Mar 19, 2013 | Discussions thread
Detail Man
Forum ProPosts: 15,271
Like?
Re: Of course, i already told you this
In reply to texinwien, Mar 20, 2013

... you were just a ball of hubris-fuelled ad hominem. and appeals to (false) authority. I tried, Jack.

I myself see Jack as an intelligent, knowledgeable, and a reasonable fellow to communicate with. There are times when I do find that I may see some technical things somewhat differently than him, but have never known him to in my view be anything of the sort of what you describe above.

None of us are always and invariably immaculate in our reasoning:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/41980728

Even when we do learn and progress we do not become invincible authorities.

Vigorous technical debate is one thing. I rarely make comments surrounding tone of communication of others, but find such distinct, ongoing personalizations both unfortunate and in very bad taste.

In my very first posts to Mr. Hogan, I was both polite and clear that I did not think less of him for making the mistakes in thinking that he had made. I explained that I understood that the problem was complex, that it was easy to make a simple error in logic, and that I had also been mistaken about these very topics some few months ago. I told him I thought he was 100% right in 99.9% of the argument, but that the last 0.1% was ruining his conclusion.

I approached jack because he struck me as being much more intelligent than the average schlub and told him so, up front. Had he not replied with full on personal attacks and implications that I would be unable to comprehend the explanations of his correctness, and, on those grounds, refused to even justify his positions, well, I'm no saint, and may not respond to this kind of hubris too well, especially when I start out trying to be helpful.

So, there you have it. He's wrong. I would have gladly continued the discussion on a purely friendly level, but if he wishes to make it personal, well, I'm going to take a little pleasure in watching him get his well-deserved comeuppance. Not as zen as I'd like. Perhaps I'll have to do another round as a snail.

Jack sometimes has a bit of a flourish about him, but in my communciations with him I have found him to be overall a rather gentle and reserved fellow who is not at all prone to making personal and mean spirited attacks. Have been following your recent interchanges. While I confess I have not been immersing myself deeply in the technical details of the various averments, I have read the surrounding text, and am familiar with the tone of communications.

Since you are making such charges, could you please provide specific quoted examples of statements made by Jack that you feel rise to the level of "ad hominem" attacks upon you as a person? Thanks.

Read my post to him, linked above. Totally focused on the issue. Totally polite, although he'd already made snide comments elsewhere, suggesting that I had run out of arguments and was trying to 'shoot the messenger' - no idea why.

Then read his reply to the comment of mine linked above. Sorry, but I was being nothing other than polite and patient, and was sincerely hoping to help him post his mental block.

Ah, when I know I'm right, and when I'm trying to politely explain what is right to someone who has made an error in his logic, and his response is that he thinks I wouldn't be able to understand the explanation anyway (accompanied by a BS 'joke' defense of his wrongheaded ideas), yeah, not yet zen enough to just turn the other cheek yet. Working on it, but still have a ways to go.

I did not ask for your personal impressions surrounding statements made by Jack (which I think that you have made evident), or for your own personal impressions of the tone of your statements.

I did ask you to cite:

... specific quoted examples of statements made by Jack that you feel rise to the level of "ad hominem" attacks upon you as a person.

They're spread across a number of his replies, so I suggest you have a look at the original thread.

Here an early post from me to jack (linked for the second time in this thread)

I do not find a single statement by Jack quoted in that post that seems in any way "ad hominem".

And here the beginning of his reply (quoted and linked, for your convenience):

I could post a number of other examples, but I don't think it makes much sense to do that, as our entire public conversational history before this discussion is limited to a handful of posts on this very site, all easily reachable from the two links I provided above.

I don't even know where to begin, so I won't because something tells me I'd be wasting my time, but for mere fun I'll take a crack at this gem - this was followed by a fictional 'joke' proof, in the form of a captioned image.

That is just so cruel and heartless of Jack to even imply that he might be "wasting his time". I must say that I have seen far more severe statements posted on these forums in my time. Is that all ?

Why would it not "make much sense" for you to present statements substantiating your allegations ? When people make technical claims of fact, it is reasonable to ask them to directly present the specific bases of their claims. While judgments of "ad hominem" statements may be subjective in nature, why would it not "make much sense" for you to specifically identify such statements ?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow